Rhetoric Revolutionized: How Twitter, Facebook, and Text Messaging Can Save Argument

<This guest post is contributed by Leslie Johnson, who writes about health, green living, and parenting at masters in health administration.>

   

the structural transformation of the public phereIt has been said time and time again: the internet has revolutionized the world in many ways.  The World Wide Web has unquestionably changed the way we live our lives, providing a means for instant information, endless conversation, and worthless entertainment.  While several aspects of our world have been altered by the internet, the way in which we communicate with one another is perhaps what has been the most altered.  With the advent of text messaging, Facebook, and Twitter comes a new discourse environment and a new rhetoric.  While critics endlessly condemn social media as a destructor of verbal language, when used to its fullest capacity social media has the potential to promote public discourse and constructive argument.

Social media has allowed for the advent of many things, not the least of which is digital rhetoric.  But - as with any new or revolutionary movement - many individuals are not completely sold on the idea that microblogging could be beneficial to discourse.  The central complaint made against the discourse created through Facebook and Twitter is that it is trite and autobiographical vanity.  While aspects of this critique are warranted, it sorely misses the essence of digital communication and its rhetorical situation.  Yes, some Tweets and Facebook status updates are merely narcissistic dribble.  People will use this medium to divulge their favorite breakfast cereal or their current whereabouts.  

   

However, at other times Twitter and Facebook are used to present opinions, share valuable information, and create discourse.  Whether the discussion is about the best place to eat chicken wings or the condition of healthcare in the United States, discourse is being made, and this is important. Like it or not, social media encourages open public discussion.  Individuals practice written argument, critical thinking, and reading comprehension skills when participating in Twitter and Facebook.  While not all of the dialogue within this medium explores elevated, educational exposition, social media gets to the essence of our lives.  We discuss real things that concern our lives as they unfold.
   
The other most prominent complaint made against digital rhetoric is that it is inferior to extended argument.  Critics will purport that Twitter, Facebook, and text messaging only allow for limited discussion.  Many say that the 140 characters allotted to an individual in many social media realms is too limited a space to make a valid argument supported by evidence.  Many others would scoff at this.  As any argumentation, persuasion, or composition expert would insist, conciseness is fundamental to successful argument. While much academic writing displays otherwise, concise and well constructed thought makes for more solid and thorough argument.

   

All too often, arguments are stretched out into long and confusing sentences with long-winded vocabulary and unnecessary complexity.  Limiting an argument to 140 characters (about 20 words), makes for clear and direct discourse.  Furthermore, there is value in having discussions in everyday language.  The ability to bring mass public discourse to an immensely widespread social realm is endlessly valuable to the art of rhetoric.  There should be some positive recognition of the potential condensed prose could have on rhetorical power and scholarly argument.
  
No doubt social media and digital rhetoric has its shortcomings in the realm of argument.  However, in many ways, limiting our conversations and thoughts to 140 characters may revive our rhetorical abilities if done properly.  Bringing written composition and persuasive argument to the masses young and old in disguise as a small bluebird and 200-plus friend requests only promotes the written word and public discussion.